Relation between mirror symmetry, homological mirror symmetry, and SYZ conjecture











up vote
5
down vote

favorite
1












I'm very new to mirror symmetry, and have a hard time establishing a broad overview of the subject. In particular I do not understand the precise relation between the following three conjectures:




  1. Mirror symmetry, as formulated on the first page of these notes

  2. Homological mirror symmetry (HMS)

  3. The SYZ conjecture


A first basic question: when people speak of the "mirror" of a CY variety, do they really always mean a mirror in the sense of point (1) above?



My main question is whether any of these conjectures actually imply each other? For example, HMS predicts an equivalence of categories, which is only applied, in heuristic arguments for SYZ, to skyscraper sheaves. So it seems that SYZ would be at most a (refinement of (skyscraper sheaves correspond to honest Lagrangians, not just any objects in the derived category) a) consequence of HMS. In particular, the two do not seem to imply eachother?










share|cite|improve this question




























    up vote
    5
    down vote

    favorite
    1












    I'm very new to mirror symmetry, and have a hard time establishing a broad overview of the subject. In particular I do not understand the precise relation between the following three conjectures:




    1. Mirror symmetry, as formulated on the first page of these notes

    2. Homological mirror symmetry (HMS)

    3. The SYZ conjecture


    A first basic question: when people speak of the "mirror" of a CY variety, do they really always mean a mirror in the sense of point (1) above?



    My main question is whether any of these conjectures actually imply each other? For example, HMS predicts an equivalence of categories, which is only applied, in heuristic arguments for SYZ, to skyscraper sheaves. So it seems that SYZ would be at most a (refinement of (skyscraper sheaves correspond to honest Lagrangians, not just any objects in the derived category) a) consequence of HMS. In particular, the two do not seem to imply eachother?










    share|cite|improve this question


























      up vote
      5
      down vote

      favorite
      1









      up vote
      5
      down vote

      favorite
      1






      1





      I'm very new to mirror symmetry, and have a hard time establishing a broad overview of the subject. In particular I do not understand the precise relation between the following three conjectures:




      1. Mirror symmetry, as formulated on the first page of these notes

      2. Homological mirror symmetry (HMS)

      3. The SYZ conjecture


      A first basic question: when people speak of the "mirror" of a CY variety, do they really always mean a mirror in the sense of point (1) above?



      My main question is whether any of these conjectures actually imply each other? For example, HMS predicts an equivalence of categories, which is only applied, in heuristic arguments for SYZ, to skyscraper sheaves. So it seems that SYZ would be at most a (refinement of (skyscraper sheaves correspond to honest Lagrangians, not just any objects in the derived category) a) consequence of HMS. In particular, the two do not seem to imply eachother?










      share|cite|improve this question















      I'm very new to mirror symmetry, and have a hard time establishing a broad overview of the subject. In particular I do not understand the precise relation between the following three conjectures:




      1. Mirror symmetry, as formulated on the first page of these notes

      2. Homological mirror symmetry (HMS)

      3. The SYZ conjecture


      A first basic question: when people speak of the "mirror" of a CY variety, do they really always mean a mirror in the sense of point (1) above?



      My main question is whether any of these conjectures actually imply each other? For example, HMS predicts an equivalence of categories, which is only applied, in heuristic arguments for SYZ, to skyscraper sheaves. So it seems that SYZ would be at most a (refinement of (skyscraper sheaves correspond to honest Lagrangians, not just any objects in the derived category) a) consequence of HMS. In particular, the two do not seem to imply eachother?







      complex-geometry sg.symplectic-geometry mirror-symmetry






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited 5 hours ago

























      asked 5 hours ago









      user2520938

      710512




      710512






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          3
          down vote













          Disclaimer: I am also not an expert.



          According to Perutz (see 'Core homological mirror symmetry project'), it is expected that T-duality (SYZ, your 3) implies HMS (your 2), which should imply Hodge-theoretic mirror symmetry (essentially your 1). In fact, when Kontsevich put forward his HMS conjecture, he gave a heuristic argument why one should be able to deduce Hodge-theoretic ('numerical') mirror symmetry from HMS (see his ICM 1994 talk). As far as I know, this has never been proven, but recently there have been efforts in that direction by Ganatra, Perutz, Sheridan, where they prove that Hodge-theoretic mirror symmetry implies HMS, modulo a technical conjecture, and modulo the definition of the Fukaya category of a Calabi-Yau manifold. It is expected that such a definition is given in 'Quantum cohomology and split generation in Lagrangian Floer theory' by Abouzaid and the symplectic quartet usually referred to as 'FOOO', a work which has been in preparation for a long time, but it seems that there is no preprint yet.




          when people speak of the "mirror" of a CY variety, do they really always mean a mirror in the sense of point (1) above?




          I believe there is no 'always' in this subject (even for what is really meant by CY, CY means different things to different people - from holonomy $=SU(3)$ to 'noncommutative'); but a sufficient condition for a pair of CY's to be mirror is certainly that physicists say it is mirror in their sense (which is some relation between associated CFTs).






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Some of FOOO are available
            – AHusain
            2 hours ago










          • @AHusain The claim was that a specific document, coauthored by the five of AFOOO, is not available. (It is frequently cited as "in preparation", but I do not believe it has made a public appearance.)
            – Mike Miller
            2 hours ago










          • Oh I misparsed that statement as just FOOO, ok for AFOOO
            – AHusain
            2 hours ago











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "504"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f317220%2frelation-between-mirror-symmetry-homological-mirror-symmetry-and-syz-conjectur%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          3
          down vote













          Disclaimer: I am also not an expert.



          According to Perutz (see 'Core homological mirror symmetry project'), it is expected that T-duality (SYZ, your 3) implies HMS (your 2), which should imply Hodge-theoretic mirror symmetry (essentially your 1). In fact, when Kontsevich put forward his HMS conjecture, he gave a heuristic argument why one should be able to deduce Hodge-theoretic ('numerical') mirror symmetry from HMS (see his ICM 1994 talk). As far as I know, this has never been proven, but recently there have been efforts in that direction by Ganatra, Perutz, Sheridan, where they prove that Hodge-theoretic mirror symmetry implies HMS, modulo a technical conjecture, and modulo the definition of the Fukaya category of a Calabi-Yau manifold. It is expected that such a definition is given in 'Quantum cohomology and split generation in Lagrangian Floer theory' by Abouzaid and the symplectic quartet usually referred to as 'FOOO', a work which has been in preparation for a long time, but it seems that there is no preprint yet.




          when people speak of the "mirror" of a CY variety, do they really always mean a mirror in the sense of point (1) above?




          I believe there is no 'always' in this subject (even for what is really meant by CY, CY means different things to different people - from holonomy $=SU(3)$ to 'noncommutative'); but a sufficient condition for a pair of CY's to be mirror is certainly that physicists say it is mirror in their sense (which is some relation between associated CFTs).






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Some of FOOO are available
            – AHusain
            2 hours ago










          • @AHusain The claim was that a specific document, coauthored by the five of AFOOO, is not available. (It is frequently cited as "in preparation", but I do not believe it has made a public appearance.)
            – Mike Miller
            2 hours ago










          • Oh I misparsed that statement as just FOOO, ok for AFOOO
            – AHusain
            2 hours ago















          up vote
          3
          down vote













          Disclaimer: I am also not an expert.



          According to Perutz (see 'Core homological mirror symmetry project'), it is expected that T-duality (SYZ, your 3) implies HMS (your 2), which should imply Hodge-theoretic mirror symmetry (essentially your 1). In fact, when Kontsevich put forward his HMS conjecture, he gave a heuristic argument why one should be able to deduce Hodge-theoretic ('numerical') mirror symmetry from HMS (see his ICM 1994 talk). As far as I know, this has never been proven, but recently there have been efforts in that direction by Ganatra, Perutz, Sheridan, where they prove that Hodge-theoretic mirror symmetry implies HMS, modulo a technical conjecture, and modulo the definition of the Fukaya category of a Calabi-Yau manifold. It is expected that such a definition is given in 'Quantum cohomology and split generation in Lagrangian Floer theory' by Abouzaid and the symplectic quartet usually referred to as 'FOOO', a work which has been in preparation for a long time, but it seems that there is no preprint yet.




          when people speak of the "mirror" of a CY variety, do they really always mean a mirror in the sense of point (1) above?




          I believe there is no 'always' in this subject (even for what is really meant by CY, CY means different things to different people - from holonomy $=SU(3)$ to 'noncommutative'); but a sufficient condition for a pair of CY's to be mirror is certainly that physicists say it is mirror in their sense (which is some relation between associated CFTs).






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Some of FOOO are available
            – AHusain
            2 hours ago










          • @AHusain The claim was that a specific document, coauthored by the five of AFOOO, is not available. (It is frequently cited as "in preparation", but I do not believe it has made a public appearance.)
            – Mike Miller
            2 hours ago










          • Oh I misparsed that statement as just FOOO, ok for AFOOO
            – AHusain
            2 hours ago













          up vote
          3
          down vote










          up vote
          3
          down vote









          Disclaimer: I am also not an expert.



          According to Perutz (see 'Core homological mirror symmetry project'), it is expected that T-duality (SYZ, your 3) implies HMS (your 2), which should imply Hodge-theoretic mirror symmetry (essentially your 1). In fact, when Kontsevich put forward his HMS conjecture, he gave a heuristic argument why one should be able to deduce Hodge-theoretic ('numerical') mirror symmetry from HMS (see his ICM 1994 talk). As far as I know, this has never been proven, but recently there have been efforts in that direction by Ganatra, Perutz, Sheridan, where they prove that Hodge-theoretic mirror symmetry implies HMS, modulo a technical conjecture, and modulo the definition of the Fukaya category of a Calabi-Yau manifold. It is expected that such a definition is given in 'Quantum cohomology and split generation in Lagrangian Floer theory' by Abouzaid and the symplectic quartet usually referred to as 'FOOO', a work which has been in preparation for a long time, but it seems that there is no preprint yet.




          when people speak of the "mirror" of a CY variety, do they really always mean a mirror in the sense of point (1) above?




          I believe there is no 'always' in this subject (even for what is really meant by CY, CY means different things to different people - from holonomy $=SU(3)$ to 'noncommutative'); but a sufficient condition for a pair of CY's to be mirror is certainly that physicists say it is mirror in their sense (which is some relation between associated CFTs).






          share|cite|improve this answer












          Disclaimer: I am also not an expert.



          According to Perutz (see 'Core homological mirror symmetry project'), it is expected that T-duality (SYZ, your 3) implies HMS (your 2), which should imply Hodge-theoretic mirror symmetry (essentially your 1). In fact, when Kontsevich put forward his HMS conjecture, he gave a heuristic argument why one should be able to deduce Hodge-theoretic ('numerical') mirror symmetry from HMS (see his ICM 1994 talk). As far as I know, this has never been proven, but recently there have been efforts in that direction by Ganatra, Perutz, Sheridan, where they prove that Hodge-theoretic mirror symmetry implies HMS, modulo a technical conjecture, and modulo the definition of the Fukaya category of a Calabi-Yau manifold. It is expected that such a definition is given in 'Quantum cohomology and split generation in Lagrangian Floer theory' by Abouzaid and the symplectic quartet usually referred to as 'FOOO', a work which has been in preparation for a long time, but it seems that there is no preprint yet.




          when people speak of the "mirror" of a CY variety, do they really always mean a mirror in the sense of point (1) above?




          I believe there is no 'always' in this subject (even for what is really meant by CY, CY means different things to different people - from holonomy $=SU(3)$ to 'noncommutative'); but a sufficient condition for a pair of CY's to be mirror is certainly that physicists say it is mirror in their sense (which is some relation between associated CFTs).







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 3 hours ago









          S. S.

          375211




          375211












          • Some of FOOO are available
            – AHusain
            2 hours ago










          • @AHusain The claim was that a specific document, coauthored by the five of AFOOO, is not available. (It is frequently cited as "in preparation", but I do not believe it has made a public appearance.)
            – Mike Miller
            2 hours ago










          • Oh I misparsed that statement as just FOOO, ok for AFOOO
            – AHusain
            2 hours ago


















          • Some of FOOO are available
            – AHusain
            2 hours ago










          • @AHusain The claim was that a specific document, coauthored by the five of AFOOO, is not available. (It is frequently cited as "in preparation", but I do not believe it has made a public appearance.)
            – Mike Miller
            2 hours ago










          • Oh I misparsed that statement as just FOOO, ok for AFOOO
            – AHusain
            2 hours ago
















          Some of FOOO are available
          – AHusain
          2 hours ago




          Some of FOOO are available
          – AHusain
          2 hours ago












          @AHusain The claim was that a specific document, coauthored by the five of AFOOO, is not available. (It is frequently cited as "in preparation", but I do not believe it has made a public appearance.)
          – Mike Miller
          2 hours ago




          @AHusain The claim was that a specific document, coauthored by the five of AFOOO, is not available. (It is frequently cited as "in preparation", but I do not believe it has made a public appearance.)
          – Mike Miller
          2 hours ago












          Oh I misparsed that statement as just FOOO, ok for AFOOO
          – AHusain
          2 hours ago




          Oh I misparsed that statement as just FOOO, ok for AFOOO
          – AHusain
          2 hours ago


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





          Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


          Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f317220%2frelation-between-mirror-symmetry-homological-mirror-symmetry-and-syz-conjectur%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          404 Error Contact Form 7 ajax form submitting

          How to know if a Active Directory user can login interactively

          TypeError: fit_transform() missing 1 required positional argument: 'X'